Controversial Storage Lot For 110 School Buses Approved Despite Appeal

SONOMA COUNTY, CA — A contested school bus storage yard being planned and prepared for over two decades got the final go-ahead Tuesday from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, which denied an appeal of the county planning commission's approval of the project in 1999.

The roughly 9-acre property will contain two lots, one that has already been constructed on West Robles Avenue and another on Juniper Avenue, both in Santa Rosa. The Juniper Avenue lot, dubbed "Phase II" of the project, was the subject of the appeal.

Together, the two lots will house 110 school buses from the West County Transportation Agency, which serves over 200 schools in the county. There will also be space for employee parking, which will require bus drivers to essentially exchange their parked vehicle for a bus, as the maximum number of vehicles on the second lot is capped at 80, creating an overall capacity issue between the two lots.

The agency's executive director Chad Barksdale told the board Tuesday that the lot is needed because the agency's service area and number of stops have continued to grow.

Multiple neighbors objected to the proposed lot, which has been slowly taking shape despite the lack of clarity on the project. An appeal led by neighbors Kent Lawson and Kasia Nowak urged the board to reject the project on several grounds, including the fact that West County Transportation Agency began grading work on the lot before the final design review was approved.

Lawson also said that the 2018 addition of the Santa Rosa City Schools District to the bus agency's routes would lead to hundreds of additional trips and more traffic at the site than what was originally incorporated into the approval.

"This traffic was not something that was contemplated by the Board of Supervisors in 1999," said Lawson, who presented the appeal to the board and urged further environmental review.

"There is an attempt here, I think, to sweep all of this under the rug because this project was approved by mistake. It's also a project that, very shockingly, has been substantially completed," Lawson said.

Planning Commission staff said that the transportation agency was not to blame, as a grading permit had indeed been issued in error, but the commission eventually gave the green light for the second lot anyway. The Planning Commission said the project could go ahead with modifications, such as fewer buses parked at the yard, darkening lights during nighttime, installing fencing, implementing sound restrictions, and improving drainage on the property.

The drainage issue remained one of the most contentious at the meeting, which saw three neighbors comment that construction at the lot had already impacted their properties, causing flooding during heavy rain.

One neighbor said that his father-in-law had been trapped by flooding on his property during recent storms. They argued berms with setback areas required as part of the conditions of the project were not adequately built and that the agency filled in surrounding irrigation channels.

Barksdale said that the agency is addressing the berm setbacks and had already re-installed a storm drain that was above grade. He said the interim period between Phase I and Phase II construction had been spent securing the 48 permits needed to expand the site. He also accused the appellants of engaging in a smear campaign.

County staff said that the area was prone to flooding and could not hold the agency fully responsible for preventing flooding in the surrounding neighborhood.

The board, down two members, as Supervisor David Rabbitt was absent for the day and Supervisor Lynda Hopkins for the afternoon session, ultimately voted 3-0 to deny the appeal and approve the project with additional modifications to drainage requirements.

Lawson alleged during his presentation that the Planning Commission had acted in bad faith and repeatedly called out planning commissioners by name, which Supervisor James Gore objected to. Board chair Chris Coursey likewise pointed out that the long process had spanned multiple Boards of Supervisors and separate planning commissions.

The project was declared compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, but Lawson said the lack of further review in the face of new information created the likelihood of litigation if the appeal was not granted.

Copyright © 2023 Bay City News, Inc. All rights reserved. Republication, rebroadcast or redistribution without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited. Bay City News is a 24/7 news service covering the greater Bay Area.